BETTY J. JORDAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARTINES CORPORATION AND AMERICAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This workers' compensation case involves a claimant appealing an order regarding attorney's fees. The appellate court found that the deputy commissioner exceeded the scope of the hearing by determining the claimant's responsibility for attorney's fees, which was explicitly excluded from the initial hearing's scope.
Yes, the deputy commissioner erred by determining the amount of attorney's fees payable by the claimant to her lawyer, as this issue was outside the scope of the hearing previously delineated by the deputy.
[1] A deputy commissioner's order on attorney's fees is invalid when it addresses issues beyond those explicitly reserved for determination at the hearing.
[2] A deputy commissioner's determination of a reasonable attorney's fee payable by a claimant to their attorney is improper when the hearing was limited to the issue of bad…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Now, that does not mean that you’re not entitled to a fee from your own client. That is another issue. I’m not taking up that issue today.”
Establishes the deputy commissioner's explicit exclusion of the claimant's responsibility for attorney's fees from the hearing's scope.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe claimant appealed an order that determined the employer/carrier did not act in bad faith and set a reasonable attorney's fee of $1,224.61 to be pa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
The claimant in this workers’ compensation case appeals an order finding the employer/carrier (E/C) did not act in bad faith pursuant to section 440.34(3)(b), Florida Statutes, finding $1,224.61 to be a reasonable attorney’s fee, and ordering that that amount be paid by the claimant to her attorney. Claimant argues on appeal that the order, which was entered almost 13 months after the hearing on attorney’s fees, was “stale” and, as a result, contained several fundamental errors. We find only one of the five alleged errors warrants reversal.
The deputy commissioner in this case stated on the record at the 1986 hearing on attorney’s fees that the only issues to be decided were: (1) whether the carrier acted in bad faith in handling the claim, and (2) if so, what amount would constitute a reasonable fee to be paid by the E/C. The deputy specifically stated: “Now, that does not mean that you’re not entitled to a fee from your own client. That is another issue. I’m not taking up that issue today.” In his delayed order on attorney’s fees, however, the deputy stated: “Having determined there was no bad faith one must then determine the amount of attorney’s fees payable by the claimant to her lawyer....” (emphasis supplied) The order then proceeded for several pages to discuss the basis for the deputy’s determination of a reasonable fee, and concluded by ordering the claimant to pay her attorney a fee of $1,224.61. Since this determination went beyond the scope of the hearing as specifically delineated by the deputy, we reverse and remand for deletion of that portion of the order determining the reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and finding the claimant responsible for those fees.
We find that the remaining errors discussed in appellant’s brief were either corrected by the deputy commissioner in an amended order entered upon claimant’s motion for rehearing, or constituted harmless error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE, and REMAND.
BOOTH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Drexel Williams v. Tarmac Am. & Esis-Ace U.S. Co., 131 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…benefits on that basis. On appeal, Claimant argues compensa-bility of the back injury was never at issue. We agree, and hold the JCC erred in making findings on matters outside the issues framed for the hearing. See, e.g., Jordan v. Martines Corp., 534 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that ruling beyond scope of hearing is fundamental error). Compensability of the back condition was neither put at issue by Claimant in the PFB or pretrial stipulation nor challenged by the E/C. Notably, the E/C’s provis…